Next Generation Next Destination

SUCCESSION AND PARTNER TRANSITIONING PLANNING: A COMPELLING ISSUE FOR OUR TIMES

"Demographics are our destiny," reinvention is the new retirement," "win the talent wars" and be "the employer of choice."  Recognizing the challenges and opportunities, Practice Development Counsel's *Next Generation, Next Destination* program was developed by Phyllis Weiss Haserot and Richard T. McDermott in 2005 to achieve advance transitioning planning to benefit both senior partners and the professional growth of younger partners as well as their firms overall.

Welcome!!! Visit and subscribe to this blog for continuing insights on how to do it right and make your organization a better, more profitable and more successful workplace for all the generations of workers and clients. Please offer your comments and contribute to the discussion.

PEOPLE WANT TO SEE A PURPOSE IN WORK

A new survey of 4,200 people in the US, UK and Germany by Calling Brands consultancy found a high level of desire to work for an employer organization with an underlying spirit that goes beyond commercial and operational goals. The study consisted of interviews with HR and Communications chiefs from major multinational organizations. In reporting on the findings, it was said that this is a change in attitude. No demographics were given except the country of residence.

Related but not the same thing as Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Purpose now appears to be a powerful driver for retention and attraction of employees as well as productivity.

Perhaps the need to spend so much time at work is driving people to seek meaningful intangibles during the course of their work and to feel they are fulfilling a greater purpose than merely profitability. Survey results indicated that an average of 57% of respondents (58% in the US) would favor joining an organization that has a clearly defined “Purpose, ” and an average of 65% said that Purpose would motivate them to “go the extra mile.”

 

 

ARE WE FLEEING FROM CONVERSATION? Is it generational?

“The Flight from Conversation” by Sherry Turkle, her opinion piece in the New York Times Sunday Review, suggests that our connectedness to and by electronic gadgets have changed “not only what we do, but who we are.” I had the privilege of meeting and hearing Turkle speak at the Renaissance Weekend in Charleston, SC in December 2011 on this and related subjects. She claims that people are alone together. “We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one.”

Some examples from Turkle you may relate to:

“We want to go to a meeting but pay attention only to what interests us.”

“Young people who have grown up fearing conversation show up on the job wearing earphones.” Turkle told of a partner at a Boston law firm who described a scene of associates in his office who come in and lay out their “suite of technologies: laptops, iPads and multiple phones. Next they proceed to put on a pair of large earphones. It’s like pilots in their cockpits. There is a silence that suggests they don’t want to be disturbed.

It’s not just enjoying the use of tech toys. Social media, e-mail and texting enable us to present ourselves as we would like to be, which may not be how we are, observes Turkle. We can edit, create avatars, perfect photos. We can clean up messy and demanding human relationships with technology.

Turkle says “sips” of online connection (all of which have their place) don’t add up to a big gulp of real conversation and don’t add up to really knowing each other. Nuance is missing. It’s dumbed down, like watching only cable news headlines. And lack of conversation translates to missing development of self-reflection skills, so we are cheating ourselves as well.

Turkle gave some examples of how some people are seemingly desperate for someone to listen to them but seek out Siri (on Apple’s iPhone) or some other surrogate for the person they really should be conversing with because it’s more comfortable. “We expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship,” wrote Turkle.

“I am a partisan of conversation,” she wrote. “To make room for it I see some first deliberate steps.”  She goes on to suggest ways to create device-free rules, times and spaces at home, work and vacation. “Most of all, we need to remember to listen to each other, even the boring bits, because it is often in unedited moments, moments in which we hesitate and stutter and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one another,” Turkle stated.

We tend to associate constant electronic communication and being tethered to those gadgets with the youngest generations. Is that actually true? Haven’t older workers caught the fever too? Are they fleeing from real conversation?

Clearly I sympathize with Turkle’s view since the Cross-Generational Conversation group I started and moderate on Linkedin is one conscious attempt to get people of different generations conversing and sharing their perspectives. (Do check it out!)

But is the situation quite as bad as she points out, and how far can we modify the current habits? Here are some questions that come to mind:

• What would motivate people to adopt device-free actions that Turkle suggests? (in meetings, at home, on vacations, in cars)
• Are electronic connections keeping us from connecting emotionally?
• Are many of us avoiding the messiness of relationships and self-reflection in a delusionary effort to seek perfection?
• Is Turkle’s view an over-reaction?
• What other questions does this issue raise for you?

Please comment and share your thoughts.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

YOUNG PHILANTHROPY, NEW MODEL – Part II

It’s been characterized as a tribal thing in Silicon Valley – a tribe with young “elders.” Wrote Holly Finn in a recent Wall Street Journal column,  “Philanthropy plays to their strengths. They are resilient, craving results but loving risk. They know how to mobilize millions. Scaling equals success. And they understand technology is transferable, profit to non-profit.”

Look where they give. It’s what they know, they understand, they see as the future: not so much giving to the arts and culture, but to education and growing entrepreneurship, new businesses that will create jobs.

I think that whether we call it impatience or desire for immediacy or living in the moment because of constant change, uncertainly, distrust of or frustration with established institutions and desire to see the impact of their efforts quickly, we can expect Gen X and Gen Y philanthropy to exhibit some similar characteristics:

• Support causes they personally relate to such as educational- and small business-oriented ones, that is, they foster economic growth and innovation;
• Support causes and market-driven helping enterprises that are started and supported by their friends and peers;
• Take active roles as doers, not wait to “pay their dues” in the traditional board hierarchies;
• Use social media, crowdfunding, alliances and joint ventures to gain visibility and have impact faster than in the past – as they do in their businesses and personal life.

It will be interesting to see how new approaches to philanthropy, many enabled and influenced by technology, ripple out to other views about money, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and solving both local and world problems.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot   www.pdcounsel.com 

 

REINVENTING PHILANTHROPISTS: Gen X-Y as role models?

We have been witnessing and experiencing two opposing trends affecting the generations in different ways during this recent and enduring economic crisis/recession/downtown. This article focuses on Generations X and Y, people in their 20s to late 40s. While those two generations are different from each other in significant ways, their use of technology to reinvent approaches (or processes) is worth examining not only for the immediate purpose intended, but also for new models to apply their values to making and spending money.

During the downturn the affluent and wealthy have generally gotten wealthier – that is, those who already have significant assets as well as the successful tech entrepreneurs and hedge fund managers, to name the most obvious. During the same period, the under 35ers who had education debt and had trouble getting a good or any job, especially the high-paying ones they expected their education to result in, have been suffering for who knows how long. This gap is certain to shape long-term attitudes about money and values for both the haves and have-nots.

For the young members of the creative class, it’s no time for hunkering down. With Silicon Valley’s very successful entrepreneurs leading the way – and exerting peer pressure by offering large sums if they are matched by others in the tech community – we may be seeing those generations’ tech entrepreneurs become role models of young philanthropy.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal (May 5, 2012) by Holly Finn in an article, “Young, Rich and Charitable,” they are stepping up in a big way now. For example:

• Mark Benioff (age 47), Salesforce founder, large gift to San Francisco Children’s Hospital
• Mark Zuckerberg, (27), Facebook founder, Newark, NJ schools
• Marc Andreessen (40) and Ben Horowitz (45) founders of Venture Capital firm Andreessen Horowitz – the 6 partners pledged to give away half of their earnings

And others (not named Mark): signed Warren Buffet’s Giving Pledge:

• Elon Musk (40), PayPal founder
• Dustin Moskovitz (27), Facebook co-founder
• Sergey Brin (38), Google and wife Anne Wojcicki (38) promised $1 million to local anti-poverty charity Tipping Point if matched by Silicon Valley peers
• Jack Dorsey (35), Twitter co-founder, opened his rolodex and arranged a fundraiser for Build, a non-profit that teaches disadvantaged students how to be entrepreneurs

Leaning on others to spread the philanthropy trend, calls have been made to peers who have just sold companies and walked away with big bucks.  Angel investor Ron Conway said, “The Facebook generation is going to be very philanthropic earlier in their careers.”

 Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

ADVENTURE, LOVE AND PURPOSE IN ENCORE YEARS – and Contest

I periodically pass on information from Marc Freedman, founder of Civic Ventures and Encore Careers on this blog to let you know about applications for prizes, awards and other information of note. In this post, I am spreading his news about a highly recommended movie with a sensational cast and a contest. Below are the details.

I’m writing to let you know about a beautiful re-coming-of-age movie, starring Judi Dench, Tom Wilkerson, Maggie Smith and Bill Nighy, along with Dev Patel, the young star of “Slumdog Millionaire.”

“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” is about adventure, love and purpose in the encore years. If you love to laugh and travel -- and are wondering what’s next in your life -- you’re in for a treat.

And you could be in for a prize, too…if you enter the Marigold Ideas for Good Contest.

http://www.takepart.com/marigold/contest?cmpid=encore

The contest is for people over 50 who have great ideas for doing something to improve the quality of life in their communities.

Each month for the next six months, Participant Media -- with help from the voting public and Encore.org -- will select five winners. Each will win a $5,000 grant; one will win the money plus the trip of a lifetime from Road Scholar.

So if you’ve got an idea about how you can make the world a better place for future generations, I hope you’ll enter today.

http://www.takepart.com/marigold/contest?cmpid=encore

Spread the word. There’s no time like the present to start thinking about what you’d like to do for an encore!

 

 

 

Financial Planning: MultiGenerational Living Is Working

Gen Y/Millennials are contributing at home as they save, not simply living on parental support. A Pew Research Center survey of over 2,000 adults in the U.S. in early 2012 yielded these statistics:

• Over 20% of 25-34 year olds live in multigenerational households, nearly double the percentage in 1980 (the more independent Boomer and Gen X generations).
• 24% of young adults 18-24moved back in with their parents in the last few years owing to economic conditions.
• Even more, 41% of adults 25-29, live with or moved back in with their parents.
• Of adults 30-34, 17% did the same.

And both parents and children report they are positive, neutral or satisfied with the arrangement.

It’s not totally a parental handout.  Survey findings indicated that 75% of the young adult children contribute to household expenses, e.g., groceries and utility bills, and 35% say they pay rent.  96% say they do chores around the house. The report didn’t specify how long the arrangements have continued and whether there will be a tipping point at which either side or both will no longer feel positive about the arrangements.

Financial planners advise that a plan be developed and agreed to by both parents and live-in young adults, including charging rent, so expectations are clear and there be an exit strategy and parents don’t jeopardize their retirement savings.

This experience is probably working because Gen Y/Millennials and their parents, to generalize, have closer relationships than any parent-child relationship in history.  That is a positive thing for the most part, but when possible, adult children should build independent and self-sufficient lives.

How long do you think the current trend will last? How does this impact work attitudes positively or negatively?

 

 

 

 

 

Are Age and Wisdom Connected?

I received a very interesting article from The Economist sent by my friend Iris Wolinsky, a mediator and arbitrator. I love it and always say we need to challenge our assumptions about age - and all aspects of diversity and behavior.

Here is link to article. Age and wisdom  Older and wiser?

Americans get wiser with age. Japanese are wise from the start

What are your thoughts?   

 

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT ON INTERGENERATIONAL COLLABORATION

I received this note from my dynamo Cornell extern, Jaime Freilich, a junior at Cornell University and campus representative to the Clinton Global Initiative University:

“I was at the Clinton Global Initiative University Meeting, and I had the pleasure of hearing Madeleine Albright speak. She said something so relevant to everything you work towards. The gist of what she said is that in order for our country to be forward-moving, intergenerational conversation and collaboration is imperative because the younger generations have the creativity, energy, and idealism to think of creative solutions to problems while the older generations have the practical experience to ground the young ones and to work together in pursuit of a better tomorrow. I thought it was very interesting and I had to share with you!”

So true. Jaime knows my strategic purpose is to facilitate and foster intergenerational understanding, appreciation, cooperation, collaboration and action. This goes way beyond bridging the communications gaps, though that is integral to it. Our future strength depends on it – as businesses, institutions, families and the kind of world we want to live in.

Along these lines, one of my favorite aspects of my work is facilitating dialogues among people of different generations in business settings. My monthly newsletter is called Cross-Generational Conversation (sign up at www.pdcousel.com). And I’m vey excited to start a Linkedin group also called Cross-Generational Conversation, with a multi-generational group of committed contributors.

Jaime will be there. Will you? I invite you to join the conversation. Maybe we can even get Madeleine Albright to comment.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

BAD NEWS ON WOMEN’S NETWORKS and generations and gender diversity

The Wall Street Journal reported on a Simmons School of Management survey of 166 female professionals, all of whom had women’s support groups at their workplace. The news was quite disheartening in terms of the overall attitude toward the groups, participation and results.

But first the good news: what worked. The women who said they were actively involved in the women’s networks and thought they were very effective described these characteristics of the groups: They met frequently, had financial support from the company – and they were open to both men and women.

Now the bad news. 29% of the women responding were not involved in any workplace women’s network. Most said they didn’t have the time. Other reasons given were they didn’t share the network’s goals or they didn’t see the value or they weren’t eligible. Another 16% beyond those 29% were a member of a network at their organization but rarely got involved. And of those belonging, more than 75% found their networks only somewhat or not at all effective in meeting the group’s goals. Goals most often included networking, retention and promotion of women and professional development.

What are we to conclude? Perhaps the formation of many women’s networks is still a matter of lip service on the part of senior management, or at least believed to be by many women. Maybe they are getting mixed messages: "We’ll let you form women’s networks, but you’ll be rewarded by other uses of your time." And if the more senior women are not committed to regularly attend, younger women may take their lead from them or feel the value is much reduced without the mentoring possibilities from more experienced professionals.

Going back to the networks that were effective, the reasons are no surprise. For women’s networks to be taken seriously in a still male-dominated culture as far as clout is concerned, there has to be solid and visible support from management, and that includes financial support as well as praising and otherwise recognizing the active members of the networks and their accomplishments. Frequent meetings are needed to establish bonds and trust and build confidence among members.

And, I think, very important (as I have said for many years), men must be part of the process. They need to be welcomed to help and sponsor the women as well as to learn from them. Attending some of the meetings will enable them to better understand how diversity strengthens the organization and what the obstacles are. Gender separation is not a long-term solution. And generationally there are different views on gender separation. To generalize, the Gen Y/Millennials and youngest Gen Xers don’t recognize the gender differences as much as the older generations and have different expectations about how they will be treated.

I hope to see women adjust their approach and attitudes toward women’s networks and get real buy-in from male colleagues so they can be more effective in reaching stated goals and the day when they will no longer be considered necessary because the goals have been achieved.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

GO NOWHERE OR GENERATION WHY BOTHER? Facts, stereotypes and personal observations

I recently read what may be surprising statistics in a New York Times Opinion piece, “The Go Nowhere Generation “ (March 11, 2012) by Todd G. Buchholz and Victoria Buchholz about the group now known as emerging adults or enduring adolescents (18-to twenty-somethings). Based on studies from reputable sources:

• The proportion of young adults living in their parents’ home nearly doubled between 1980 and 2008 (before the Great Recession). [Pew Research Center]
• Young people want to stay connected with their hometowns and are turning down jobs in their chosen field for lesser choices in their hometown.    [Harvard Institute of Politics]
• An increasing number of teenagers aren’t even bothering to get a driver’s license, dropping from 80% getting licenses in 1980 to 65%in 2008. [University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute]. The TRI also found that when young people spent more time on the Internet, they delayed getting a driver’s license.
• “Young people raised during recessions end up less entrepreneurial and less willing to leave home because they believe luck counts more than effort,” said Paula Guiliano, an economist at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management. (Since the statistics are from before the Great Recession, I assume the reference for Gen Ys could be the recession around 2000-2001.)

While I’m not denying the validity of the statistics, I find some of the numbers and conclusions counter to what I’ve observed of the ambitious college students and recent graduates I have met and worked with on projects and as a mentor. So many, if they can swing it financially, are spending semesters abroad, looking for the experience of working abroad after graduation and even starting businesses in developing countries. And so many want to start their own businesses as soon as they can learn enough to take the plunge, rather than working for large corporations. They jump at learning opportunities, as long as they are treated well, even without pay. On the other hand, there is a strong materialistic streak in the generation as a whole at the same time as being drawn to altruistic causes.

One of the things this tells me is that Gen Y does not come in one flavor. No generation does, particularly if viewed as a cohort covering 15-20 years. They are right to resent being characterized as if they are all the same. They want to forge their own paths, and I believe they will, even if the economy causes delays.

Yet there are important patterns as the statistics illustrate. Behavioral and attitudinal changes are occurring, and the outcome is dependent as much on our reaction to them as the changes themselves. We need to give the greatest weight to our own experiences with people and do our part to make the experiences positive, constructive and educational.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot     www.pdcounsel.com